Hard and soft science

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity.^[1][2][3] In general, the formal sciences and natural sciences are considered hard science, whereas the social sciences and other sciences are described as soft science.^[4]

Precise definitions vary,^[5] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.^{[2][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are basic or applied.^[5][13]

Philosophers and historians of science have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness. The more "developed" hard sciences do not necessarily have a greater degree of consensus or selectivity in accepting new results.^[6] Commonly cited methodological differences are also not a reliable indicator. For example, social sciences such as psychology and sociology use mathematical models extensively, but are usually considered soft sciences.^[1][2] However, there are some measurable differences between hard and soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs,^[5][14] and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords.^[15]

The metaphor has been criticised for unduly stigmatizing soft sciences, creating an unwarranted imbalance in the public perception, funding, and recognition of different fields.^[2][3][16]